ISSUED  BY  THE  CHARITY  ORGANIZATION  SOCIETY 
OF  CHICAGO. 


HOW  PAUPERS  ARE  MADE. 


An  Address  on  the  Prevention  of  Pauperism. 


BY  THE 


Rev.  S.  HUMPHREYS  GURTEEN, 

Organizing  Secretary 

OF  THE 

CHICAGO  CHARITY  ORGANIZATION  SOCIETY. 


CHICAGO  : 

Printed  by  R.  R.  Donnelley  & Sons,  142  Monroe  Street. 
1883. 


' 6 C;  | . 

& H o 


4V  Jc  '3  w > U.  H, 


How  Paupers  are  Made, 


The  rapid  growth  of  Pauperism,  of  late  years,  in  every  one  of 
the  great  cities  of  our  land  is  too  apparent  to  be  overlooked 
and  too  alarming  to  be  allowed  any  longer  to  exist  unheeded  by  the 
philanthropic  and  charitable  among  our  people. 

At  the  present  day  this  important  subject  is  receiving  the 
serious  and  earnest  consideration  of  thoughtful  men  in  every  section 
of  the  country,  and  the  question  is  being  asked  on  every  hand 
“Is  there  not  some  practical,  well-devised  scheme  for  preventing 
the  growth  of  this  evil” — an  evil  be  it  remembered  which  is  increas- 
ing as  steadily  as  our  national  prosperity  is  advancing  and  which  is 
keeping  even  pace  with  the  yearly  increasing  wealth  of  the 
country  ? 

- ^ Unfortunately  the  business  men  in  our  large  cities  know  but 
little  of  the  utter  ruin — personal,  social,  and  moral — which  always 
_ marks  the  track  of  Pauperism.  They  see  the  pauper,  perhaps,  for 
a few  seconds  as  he  stands  at  the  door  of  their  offices  or  their  homes 
to  beg,  and  then  vanishes  from  their  sight ; or,  it  may  be,  that  now 
and  again  they  catch  a momentary  glimpse  of  this  terrible  evil  when 
some  reporter  for  the  public  press  gives  a wood  picture  of  scenes 
which  he  has  witnessed  in  some  of  the  hot-beds  of  Pauperism.  But 
if  we  would  see  Pauperism  as  it  is  ; how  it  destroys  all  that  is  noble 
in  human  nature  ; how  it  casts  its  deadly  blight  over  all  family  ties ; 
how  it  desecrates  the  home ; how  it  pillages  society  and  rebels 
against  all  law  and  social  order,  we  must  witness  it  for  ourselves  as 
it  exists  in  its  hiding-places  in  this  and  other  great  centres  of  popu- 
lation. 

It  may  seem  to  be  a sweeping  statement,  but  we  make  it  un- 
hesitatingly, that  so-called  charity  is  largely  , responsible  for  tips 
terrible  state  of  things : for  Charity  can  be  the  greatest  blessing 
or  the  greatest  curse  of  the  human  race. 


4 


f 


Charity  can  take  the  helpless  orphan,  educate  him,  and  start  him 
in  life  on  an  equal  footing  with  his  more  favored  fellows.  It  can  take 
the  aged,  whom  misfortune  has  overtaken  late  in  the  struggle  for 
wealth,  and  render  their  declining  years  peaceful  and  happy.  It  can 
take  those  who  are  out  of  employment,  but  ready  and  willing  to  work, 
and  can  raise  them  to  a position  of  permanent  self-support.  It  can 
take  the  temporary  sick,  who,  if  well,  would  be  wholly  or  partially 
self-supporting,  and  by  proper  care  can  hasten  their  restoration 
to  health.  It  can  take  the  children  of  working  women  and  give  them 
food  and  shelter,  and  the  first  step  in  their  secular  education  as 
citizens,  while  the  mothers  are  at  work  ; and  in  many  a way  it  can 
help  to  better  and  elevate  the  condition  of  the  helpless  and  honest 
poor.  Yes,  Charity  can  do  all  this,  and  much  more  that  is  benefi- 
cent, and  elevating,  and  ennobling  ! But  charity  is  not  always 
beneficent.  It  is  possible  to  do  an  immense  amount  of  harm  by 
charity,  so-called.  It  is  possible  to  reduce  a fellow-being  to  the  con- 
dition of  a willing  pauper  by  fostering  habits  of  indolence  and 
dependence  and  improvidence.  It  is  possible  to  rob  a human 
being  of  his  manhood — of  all  that  is  noble  in  his  nature,  and  to  leave 
him  a mere  wreck,  to  drift  hither  and  thither  on  the  ocean  of  life, 
in  utter  recklessness  and  despondency,  till  he  ends  his  days  in  the 
workhouse,  the  reformatory  or  the  prison. 

Now,  too  distinct  a line  cannot  be  drawn  between  the  poor 
man  and  the  pauper.  We  cannot  think  that  there  is  any  room  in 
this  busy  world  of  ours  for  those  social  drones  who  prey  upon  the 
industry  of  others,  and  prefer  to  beg  rather  than  to  work.  The 
very  existence  of  the  pauper  is  a disgrace  to  our  civilization.  For 
the  “ poor  ” there  is  ample  room  in  the  great  heart  of  humanity, 
but  tHe  very  word  “pauper  ’’ is  a blot  upon  our  language.  Yes, 
and  not  only  have  we  given  a name  to  this  creature  of  our  own  mak- 
ing, this  mixture  of  things  pitiful  and  hateful,  we  have  even  put 
the  idea  into  brick  and  stone,  and  in  our  “ county  alms-houses  ” we 
have  pauperism  vaunting  itself  in  official  garb  and  coming  home  to 
us,  as  curses  always  do,  to  be  fed,  and  clothed,  and  supported  at  the 
expense  of  the  industrious. * 

-pWe  say  that  the  pauper  is  the  creature  of  our  own  making; 
how  then  are  paupers  made  ? 

'b  Take  a simple  illustration  of  the  steps  by  which  an  honest  hu- 
man being  is  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a pauper.  Take  the  case 
of  a poor  woman,  a widow  ; a case  that  is  constantly  coming  to 


5 


the  notice  of  the  benevolent.  What  has  usually  been  our  action  in 
such  a case  ? Instead  of  once  for  all  considering  how  much  she 
could  do  for  her  own  and  her  children’s  support,  and  uniting  our 
forces  to  relieve  her  of  that  part  of  the  burden  which  she  could  not 
possibly  meet,  we  have  allowed  her  to  come  to  our  houses  to  beg,  and 
we  have  given  her,  when  her  story  or  tears  moved  us,  a few  dollars. 
We  eased  our  own  feelings  by  doing  this,  but  what  besides  did  we 
accomplish  ? Did  we  fortify  her  for  the  battle  of  life  ? Did  we 
cultivate  in  her  the  habit  of  frugality,  or  deliberate  arrangement  as 
to  the  best  expenditure  of  her  scanty  means?  No!  We  did  our 
best  to  teach  her  how  easy  it  was,  if  she  got  into  debt,  to  go  around 
from  house  to  house  and  solicit  a few  dollars  from  each,  and  having 
met  the  difficulty  for  the  moment  to  begin  involving  herself  in  an- 
other. Now  look  at  her  a few  years  later.  The  sincere  grief  of  the 
widowed  mother  degraded  into  a means  of  begging  ! The  ready 
tears  coming  at  call ! The  sacred  grief  paraded  for  every  one  to  see, 
in  hopes  that  some  one  may  alleviate  it  with  a half  dollar  ! The 
sense  of  a right  to  be  helped  has  been  fostered  : the  sense  of  her 
own  duty  has  been  weakened.  The  easily-begged  money  has  been 
easily  speak  and  grief  has  become  henstock  in  trade.  Perhaps  she  has 
discovered,  too,  that  professions  of  piety  are  rewarded  with  cash. 
We  are  shocked  at  her  hypocrisy  ; we  say  we  were  only  too  glad  to 
help  her  when  she  was  an  honest  woman,  and  while  her  grief  was 
strong  and  sincere,  but  now  it  is  different.  And  what  has  made  her 
different?  What  but  our  own  unwise,  uncharitable  charity?  The 
world  is  beginning  to  see  that  there  is  such  a thing  as  making  a pau- 
per— a confirmed  and  willing  beggar — of  our  fellows,  that  there  is 
such  a thing  as  undermining  their  manhood,  robbing  them  of  their 
self-esteem,  destroying  their  independence  of  character  and  leaving 
them  without  a will  to  work  or  ambition  to  seek  it.  In  unwise  alms- 
giving there  is  infinitely  more  at  stake  than  wasting  one’s  own 
money;  it  is  disastrous  to  the  poor,  it  is  often  ruin  to  the  poor.  ' 

But  the  curse  does  not  end  here.  By  an  eternal  law,  the  law 
of  Environment,  the  children  of  paupers  themsejves  become  paupers; 
and  by  a second  eternal  law,  the  law  of  Heredity,  paupers  breed 
ipa\ipfirs4_till  at  length  we  meet  with  such  terrible  cases  as  that  of 
the  Wood  family  in  Indianapolis,  or  the  Jukes  family  in  the  State 
oj^N&jy  York,  where  whole  families  for  generations  back  have  been 
breeding  pauperism  and  vice  till  they  have  become  an  insufferable 
tax  upon  the  community  and  a curse  to  the  country. 


6 


Now  what  means  do  we  adopt  to  counteract  this  terrible  state 
of  things?  I reply,  absolutely  none.  We  give  ourselves  up  to  a 
masterly  inactivity.  We  let  pauperism  severely  alone. 

Ask  any  of  the  clergy  of  the  city  what  course  they  adopt  with 
regard  to  paupers,;  ask  any  of  our  benevolent  societies  ; ask  our 
business  men.  One  and  all  will  tell  you,  “ W e give  nothing  to 
the  pauper  if  we  know  it.” 

Now  I have  no  fault  to  find  with  this.  It  most  certainly  is  not 
the  duty  of  any  almoner  of  charity  funds,  whether  official  or  private, 
to  expend  on  the  pauper  what  is  intrusted  to  him  for  the  benefit  of 
the  poor.  I would  simply  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this 
part  of  charity  work,  the  reclaiming  of  the  pauper,  does  not  come 
under  the  cognizance  of  any  existing  society. 

But  to  return.  It  is  the  distinguishing  mark  of  the  pauper  to 
refuse  to  work — to  prefer  to  beg.  What  then  is  he  to  do  whentKe 
door  of  every  relief  agency  is  closed  against  him,  the  door  of 
every  church,  the  door  of  every  office  and  home  ? Does  this  necessi- 
tate his  earning  his  bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow  ? JPerhaps  not, 
as  theologians  understand  that  text.  No,  work  apart,  his  sole 
resources  to  live  by  imposture  and  fraud,  and  by  means  of  a 
cleverly  worked  up  tale,  well  told,  and  accompanied  by  a few  sim- 
ple dramatic  effects  to  secure  a substantial  living  and  no  questions 
asked.*  . Day  by  day  he  goes  from  office  to  office,  house  to  house,  his 
route  forthe  month  being  mapped  out  as  skilfully  as  the  experi- 
enced manager  of  a theatrical  troupe  plans  a provincial  tour^  And 


-\ 


why  should  he  work  when  beggingjpays  so  much  better  ? 

But  even  at  this  point  he  has  not  reached  the  lowest  depths  of 
deception.  To  show  you  the  sequel  to  false  charity,  I must  take 
you  to  England,  to  a country  where  pauperism  has  grown  hoary 
with  age,  where  the  skill  of  the  impostor  has  had  to  keep  pace  with 
the  increased  scrutiny  of  the  benevolent,  where  pauperism  has  be- 
come an  art. 

Not  long  ago  there  appeared  in  the  advertising  columns  of  some 
of  the  London  journals  a notice,  stating  that  “ the  art  of  begging  is 
*‘S«wexhaustively  taught  in  six  lessons  by  Professor  Lazarus  Rooney, 
who  begs  to  inform  the  public  that  he  has  founded  a college  for 
theoretical  and  practical  instruction  in  mendicancy.”  Among 
other  practical  appliances  for  the  profession  the  professor  announces^ 
that  he  keeps  on  hand  artificial  wounds  and  sores,  assorted  braces! 
of  twins,  trained  dogs  for  blind  men,  crutches  for  cripples  and  surd 


I 


7 

/gical  bandages  for  wounded  impostors.  Information  is  afforded 
respecting  the  most  lucrative  streets  and  neighborhoods. 

One  step  lower  and  the  end  is  reached.  I have  in  my  posses- 
sion a notice,  issued  by  the  Charity  Organization  Society  of  London, 
warning  citizens  not  to  give  to  the  following  fraudulent  societies  : 
“The  Christian  Men’s  Union  Benevolent  Association,”  “ The  Dis- 
abled Firemans’  Relief  and  Pension  Association,”  “ The  Free 
Dormitory  Association.”  These  and  many  similar  devices  for  pick- 
’ ing  the  pockets  of  the  charitable  are  the  direct  outcome  of  senti- 
mental, unwise  alms-giving. 

The  poor  man,  robbed  of  his  will  to  labor  by  unwise  charity,  be- 
comes in  course  of  time  a beggar;  from  beggar  he  becomes  a pauper  ; 
the  pauper  left  to  himself  becomes  by  easy  steps  an  impostor ; from 
impostor  a criminal,  and  often  ends  his  days,  as  he  has  lived,  at  the 
expense  of  the  public. 

The  question  arises  then,  is  it  possible  to  prevent  the  pauperiza- 
j tion  of  the  poor,  for  if  this  can  be  done  you  strike  at  once  at  the 
source  of  all  this  degradation  and  crime.  I ajnsrEfixJtiiatJ^  ; 

and  I do  not  hesitate  to  say,  after  many  years  of  experience,  that 
Charity  Organization  is  the  only  means,  so  far  devised,  for  effecting 
this  great  end. 

Now  what  is  Charity  Organization?  If  I were  asked  for  a short 
^ definition,  I should  say  it  is  the  nineteenth  century’s  solution  of  the 
great  problem  of  pauperism.  But  let  me  explain  what  I mean.  Dr. 
Chalmers,  early  in  the  present  century,  while  working  heroically 
against  the  pauperism  of  his  parish  in  Glasgow  struck  out  the  two  great 
principles  : 1st,  that  pauperism  cannot  be  dealt  with  in  the  mass,  but 
must  be  attacked  individually,  and  this  led  to  the  idea  of  dividing  a 

(city  into  districts;  and  2d,  he  insisted  that  material  relief  and  spiritual 
instruction  should  never  be  attempted  by  the  same  person  unless 
we  wish  to  raise  up  an  army  of  hypocrites.  Then  came  Frederick 
Ozanam,  the  founder  of  the  celebrated  St.  Vincent  de  Paul  society, 
of  Paris,  now  of  the  world,  with  the  great  principle  of  unsectarian- 
ism in  charity,  and  the  duty  of  helping  the  poor  because  they  are 
men,  and  not  because  they  belong  to  this  or  that  church  ; and  (2), 
he  struck  out  the  idea  of  helping  the  poor  by  the  u alms  of  good 
advice”  rather  than  by  money;  and  (3),  being  provident  for  the 
poor  as.  they  are  seldom  provident  for  themselves.  Then  came  the 
Elberfeld  system  inaugurated  by  Herr  von  der  Heydt,  and  showing 
what  might  be  accomplished  by  systematic,  constant  and  kindly 


8 


4- 


oversight  of  a friend  at  the  homes  of  the  poor,  taking,  when  neces- 
sary, relief  to  the  home  and  doing  away  with  the  degrading  neces- 
sity of  obliging  the  poor  either  to  ask  or  to  seek  charity.  Then 
came  the ' self-sacrificing  work  of  Edward  Denison  in  London,  a 
young  Oxford  graduate,  son  of  a bishop  of  the  Church  of  England, 
who  took  up  his  residence  among  the  very  poorest  classes  so  as  to 
learn  by  actual  experience  what  could  be  done  to  check  the  pauperism 
of  the  great  metropolis,  and  who  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
greater  part  of  all  charity  was  doing  positive  harm,  and  was  a pre- 
mium on  idleness,  vice  and  crime.  And  finally,  as  the  crystallization 
of  all  the  thought  and  experience  of  various  parts  of  Europe,  came 
the  Charity  Organization  Society  of  London,  which  has  accomplished 
perfect  marvels  in  that  city  of  four  millions  of  people. 

Now  if  charity  organization  is  the  solution  of  the  great  problem 
of  pauperism,  it  must  answer,  and  answer  in  a plain,  practical  way 
the  three  questions  which  lie  at  the  root  of  the  whole  matter.  It 
must  answer  the  question  : How  are  we  to  prevent  the  poor  from  be- 

ing under  the  necessity  of  asking  or  receiving  alms  ? Now  by  the  term 
“poor”  1 mean  that  large  class  who  under  ordinary  circumstances 
are  self-supporting,  but  perhaps  barely  so — those  who  while  health 
and  strength  last  can  make  both  ends  meet  and  nothing  more. 

Now,  I ask  you  is  it  true  charity,  is  it  true  love,  to  take  no 
thought  for  our  neighbor  so  long  as,  by  hard  toil  and  freedom  from 
sickness,  he  can  keep  clear  of  the  County  Agent’s  office,  or  can 
avoid  the  scrutiny  of  the  relief  agency,  or  does  not  darken  the  doors 
of  your  offices  or  homes,  asking  for  alms?  Yet  where  is  the  benevo- 
lent society  which  assumes  the  duty  of  attending  to  the  interests  of 
this  large  class  throughout  the  city,  watching  over  them,  riot  with 
the  keen  eye  of  the  money  maker,  but  with  the  loving  interest  of 
a friend? 

It  is  here  that  the  Charity  Organization  Society  steps  in  with  a 
strong,  loving  hand,  and  does  what  no  relief  society  has  ever  at- 
tempted in  the  past.  It  goes  in  the  person  of  its  District  Agent  to 
this  class  in  every  district,  not  in  a patronizing  way — which  is  as 
offensive  to  the  poor  as  it  is  to  the  rich — but  as  fellow-men,  and  pre- 
sents provident  schemes  based  on  sound  business  principles,  and 
backed  by  the  strong  ones  of  the  city — schemes  which  are  brought 
down  to  the  level  of  their  small  incomes,  and  they  are  appealed  to 
by  the  same  arguments  of  forethought  and  provision  for  the  morrow 
which  weigh  with  the  wealthy  or  well-to-do  when  they  insure  their 


lives  or  their  property.  Two  illustrations  will  suffice.  The  two 
chief  causes  which  compel  the  poor  to  ask  for  alms,  and  thus  to  take 
the  first  step  in  possible  pauperization,  are  sickness  and  w an Lof  jg&rk • 
How  does  the  society  anticipate  these  emergencies?  In  every  dis- 
trict there  will  be  started,  unless  already  in  existence,  a branch  of 
the  Provident  Dispensary,  where,  by  the  payment  of  ten  cents  per 
month  for  the  man,  ten  cents  for  the  wife,  and  five  cents  for  the 
, child,  say  a cent  for  each  working  day  of  the  month,  the  poor  man 
and  his  family  will  be  entitled  when  sick  to  the  services  of  a physi- 
cian, and  to  medicines  either  at  the  Dispensary  or  at  the  house,  as 
the  case  may  require.  This  is  no  mere  theorizing.  During  the  past 
fifteen  years,  so  convinced  have  the  medical  profession  of  London 
become  that  free  medicines  pauperize  just  as  much  as  free  soup  or 
fiee  rent,'  that  the  oId^free"dispensaries  haveT)een  changed,  wTEETew 
exceptions,  into  provident  dispensaries,  and  new  provident  ones 
started  in  many  of  the  large  cities  of  England. 

This  system  is  no  injustice  to  the  doctors,  for  the  reason  that 
the  class  of  persons  who  are  eligible  as  members  never  pay  a doctor 
as  the  matter  stands  to-day,  while  under  the  provident  system  the 
doctors  receive  the  majority  of  the  money  arising  from  membership 
dues. 

It  is  not  pauperizing  to  the  poor,  because  they  pay  for  what 
they  receive,  and  their  self-respect  is  not  destroyed. 

Or,  take  a second  example  : In  every  district  the  society  will 

establish  a branch  of  the  Penny,  or  provident  Bank,  which  will  be 
taken  to  the  very  homes  of  the  poor.  They  will  not  be  asked  to  call 
at  some  imposing  building  during  working  hours,  where  they  would 
be  jostled  by  well-dressed  depositors,  and  perhaps  raise  a smile  by 
the  smallness  of  their  deposit.  The  agent,  or  other  person  duly 
authorized  will  attend  at  some  convenient  place  in  their  own  quarter 
after  working  hours,  will  receive  their  small  savings,  and  no  one 
will  be  ashamed  of  the  smallness  of  his  deposit  when  all  deposits  are 
of  a like  nature.  And  here  again  I say  this  is  no  untried  theory. 
Says  Mr.  Bartley,  in  one  of  his  series  of  Provident  Knowledge 
Papers  : 

“The  amount  of  money  which  may  be  collected  in  this  way  is 
almost  incredible.  In  the  Yorkshire  Penny  Banks,  which  are  so 
admirably  managed,  no  less  than  <£24,867  2s.  2d.  was  due  to  the 
depositors  on  the  31st  of  December,  1870,  in  the  Leeds  Central 
Branch  alone.  The  amount  due  to  the  depositors  at  the  248 


10 


branches  was — at  the  same  date — no  less  than  £ 229,609  2s.  A great 
part  of  this — it  is  not  too  ranch  to  say — would  have  been  heedlessly 
spent,  or  what  is  worse,  probably  wasted  in  drink^had  it  not  thus 
been  secured  through  the  agency  of  the  Penny  Banks.’’ 

I might  instance  other  provident  schemes,  but  I have  said  suf- 
ficient to  illustrate  what  is  the  Society’s  plan  to  prevent  the  poor 
from  being  under  the  necessity  of  asking  or  receiving  alms. 

But  there  is  another  question  which  the  Society  must  answer 
practically  if  it  is  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  Pauperism,  and  the 
question  is  this: 

How  are  we  to  prevent  the  pauperization  of  those  who  are  compelled 
' to  seek  relief? 

It  is  beyond  dispute  thtibheaaing  As  repugnant  and  wholly  re- 
pugnant to  mail’s  nature,  as  God  has  made  him.  If  you  doubt  this 
statement  }^ou  have  only  to  watch  JJiaqxDpr  man  the  ..  first  time  that 
ha  is  compelled  fq  ask  for  assistance.  The  burning  shame  which  he 
feels  is  manifest  in  every  look,  every  gesture,  every  word.  The 
very  disclaimer  which  he  puts  forward,  viz.:  that  he  has  never 
begged  before — that  the  want  of  employment,  or  the  fact  of  sick- 
ness, alone,  could  force  him  thus  to  meet  the  wants  of  a starving 
family,  shows  .how  alien  begging  is  to  true  manhood;  how  degrading 
— yes,  it  verily  seems  as  though  the  poor,  at  such  times,  had  a 
strong  though  silent  feeling  that  they  are  taking  the  first  step  in  a 
downward  path. 

Now,  what  the  Charity  Organization  Society  is  striving  to  effect, 
is  the  fostering  of  this  honest  feeling,  where  it  exists,  in  the  bosoms 
P of  the  poor,  or  if  it  has  already  been  deadened  by  almsgiving,  to 
guard  the  poor  against  further  pauperization,  and  to  rekindle  their 
self-respect. 

BuThow  is  this  to  be  accomplished  ? 

We  contend  that  it  is  pauperizing  to  give  charity  even  to  the 
honest  poor,  unless  we  throw  around  them  the  safeguard  of  thorough 
investigation  and  personal  interest  in  their  welfare.  We  do  not  deny 
for  a single  moment  that  the  Relief  agencies  of  our  large  cities  do, 
as  a matter  of  fact,  investigate  to  the  best  of  their  ability.  But 
what  the  Society  maintains  is  this:  that  it  is  impossible  to  investi- 
gate thoroughly,  no  matter  what  the  age  or  experience  of  a benevo- 
lent agency  may  be,  unless  there  is  ihe^registration  of  all  relief  that 
is  being  given  in  a city, whether  from  the  public  purse,  from  benevo- 
lent societies,  or  from  charitable  individuals.  Registration  is  a pre-re- 


11 


quisite  to  investigation.  Why  is  it  that  in  every  State  of  the  Union, 
/ all  deeds,  all  mortgages,  all  transfers  of  real  estate,  are  required  by 
law  to  be  recorded  or  registered  ? If  there  were  no  registration,  I 
ask  you,  could  the  lawyer  make  a search,  i.e.,  investigate  a title  with 
any  degree  of  certainty  ? Why  is  it  that  registration  is  becoming 
the  rule  in  all  business  operations  ? Is  it  not  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
tecting fraud  and  protecting  rightful  claims,  and  is  it  not  acknow- 
ledged to  be  a benefit  to  the  honest  and  a drawback  only  to  those 
who  have  fraudulent  intentions? 

And  so  it  is  in  the  matter  of  charity.  Registration,  i.e.,  report- 
ing to  some  Central  Office  the  name  and  address  of  all  who  are  as- 
sisted by  charity,  is  the  sole  means  of  detecting  fraud  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other,  of  preventing  the  pauperization  of  the 
needy  poor.  The  system  adapted  by  the  Charity  Organization 
Society  is  such  that  if  the  benevolent-of-Hie^  bujjmlly 

co-operate.-  imposition  would  be  wffihmigf)  impossible.  Register 
your  charities  and  theTmpostor  might  apply  to  a score  of  charitable 
persons,  to*  a dozen  relief  societies,  to  a half  a dozen  of  the  clergy, 
but  each  time,  if  the  case  were  referred  to  the  Society  for  investiga- 
tion, the  same  report  would  be  returned  and  the  impostor  would  be 
compelled  either  to  do  his  fair  share  of  work  or  to  leave  the  city  of 
Chicago. 

In  the  case  of  the  poor  who  need  assistance,  registration  is  no 
less  important.  How  is  it  possible  to  know  for  certain  whether  the 
gift  of  money  or  food  or  clothing  will  do  harm,  will  pauperize,  unless 
-we  know  how  much  the  applicant  is  already  receiving  from  other 
sources  ? 

And  here  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  poor  can  be  pauper- 
ized either  by  too  much  charity  or  by  too  little  charity. 

Suppose  that  a family  is  in  real  distress.  There  is  not  a right- 
minded  man  in  the  community  but  would  do  his  utmost  to  assist. 
But  suppose  that  the  same  tale  of  distress  is  told  to  a dozen  different 
^.citizens,  and  each,  imagining  that  he  is  fully  relieving  a fellow 
creature’s  want,  gives  of  his  abundance,  I ask  you,  would  he  be  so 
ready  to  give  if  he  knew  for  certain  that  eleven  others  were  doing 
the  same  thing  ? 

Believe  me,  the  majority  of  the  poor,  even  the  honest  poor,  as 
we  call  them,  will-get  alLlhejr  nan  ; they  An  not,  spgjW,  it  is  wrong;  : 
they  do  not  see  that  they  are  doing  themselves  an  injury.  It  is  for  s, 
us  to  guard  them  and  prevent  them  from  doing  themselves  an  in- 


12 


justice.  Now  I ask  you  to  note  the  true  kindness  of  Registration. 
f It  enables  the  charitable  to  give  without  fear  of  pauperizing  the 
recipient  for  it  shows  how  much  is  really  needed  and  when  the 
emergency  is  once  met  prevents  the  possibility  of  the  applicant 
drawing  any  further  relief.  Nor  is  this  all. 

It  sees  that  the  needy  ha vojidequate  help  so  as  to  preclude  the 
degrading  necessitv.  i)f  begging,  and  this  is  all  important.  If  the 
poor  cannot  get  sufficient  from  one  source  they  will  seek  it  else- 
where, they  will  beg,  and  what  can  be  more  pauperizing  than  this  ? 
Besides  the  Society  will  notify  citizens  who  may  be  assisting  a case, 
the  very  moment  the  emergency  no  longer  exists,  so  that  relief 
can  be  cut  off  at  once.~‘",Otherwise  the  poor  might  be  taught  to  lean 
on  alms-giving  and  be  robbed  of  their  will  to  work. 

I know  that  the  objection  will  be  made  that  registration  in- 
volves a breach  of  J,hat  .secrecy  which  ought  to  characterize  our 
alms-giving.  I would  be  the  last  to  advocate  a system  which  did 
any  injustice  to  the  poor  or  any  violence  to  the  holy  instincts  of  the 
benevolent.  But  the  registration  of  which  I am  speaking  is  solely 
in  the  interest  of  the  poor.  The  information  confided  to  the  Society 
is  held  as  a sacred  trust.  _ Its  books  are  jealously  guarded..  No  one 
outside  of  the  office  is  allowed  access  to  these  depositories  of  infor- 
mation and  even  reports  are  sent  only  to  those  who  have  a legitimate 
interest  in  cases. 

Those  who  talk  of  thorough  “investigation,”  but  ignore  regis- 
tration know  but  little  of  the  needs  of  the  present  day.  It  has  well 
been  asked  “To  what  purpose  is  it  that  a visitor  expend  half  a day  in 
investigating  any  given  case  that  charity  may  not  be  misapplied  if 
/ the  applicant  can  depend  on  half  a dozen  other  sources  of  supply?” 
No  independent  investigation  can  prevent  jpauperization.  So  long 
as  but  one  loophole  is  left  unguarded  pauperization-  is  possible.  It 
is  by  registration,  and  registration  alone  that  the  public  can  be  pro- 
tected from  fraud  and  the  poor  be  protected  from  harm  by  super- 
fluous alms-giving. 

The  third  and  last  question  which  Charity  Organization  must 
answer  if  it  be  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  Pauperism  is  this  : 
How  are  we  to  reclaim  the  pauperized  poor  f 

This  is  indeed  a difficult  question  to  answer.  The  confirmed 
pauper — the  creature  of  persistent,  immoral  almsgiving — is  almost 
as  difficult  to  reclaim  as  the  confirmed  drunkard.  ^ I never  see  one 
of  these  poor  wrecks  of  humanity  but  I think  of  Archbishop 


13 


Whatley’s  remark : “ I thank  God  that  I shall  never  have  to  repent 
on  my  death-bed  of  ever  having  given  a penny  to  a street  beggar.” 
They  take  your  charity  (so  called),  drink  your  health  at  the  nearest 
Saloon,  and  laugh  at  your  credulity.  It  would  be  but  poetic  justice 
to  send  all  such  to  the  county  almshouse  to  be  supported  by  the  tax 
payers,  who  have  made  them  what  they  are. 

But  let  us  look  the  question  full  in  the  face.  There  are  the 
shiftless,  who  are  are  too  idle  to  work ; the  improvident , who  squan- 
der their  means ; the  dissolute , who  drink  or  gamble  away  their 
means  and  unfit  themselves  for  steady  work  ; the  confirmed  pauper, 
who  makes  a profession  of  begging ; and  the  tramp  or  vagrant,  who 
leads  a worthless  life  and  is  but  too  often  a thief.  What  is  to  be 
done  with  these  cases?  Are  we  to  leave  them  to  starve?  Are  we 
to  allow  them  to  live  upon*  alms,  and  rob  the  honest  poor?  Or, 
again,  are  we  to  make  them  a charge  upon  the  industrial  classes,  by 
taxing  our  citizens  for  their  support  ? 

I venture  to  think  that  none  of  these  courses  would  for  a 
moment  approve  itself  to  any  thoughtful  man.  No,  but  one 
course  is  open,  viz.:  to  give  relief  on  the  sole  condition  that  each 
one  makes  a full  return  in  work  for  whatever  he  may  receive,  or 
refusing  this,  bear  the  just  penalty  of  his  refusal. 

But  there  is  a large  class  of  the  partially  pauperized,  who  can 
and  should  be  reclaimed.  How  is  this  to  be  done?  Let  me  give 
you  an  illustration,  as  it  will  bring  out  in  a clear  light  the  principles 
which  underlie  the  Society’s  plan. 

A widow  with  four  children  applied  to  the  Buffalo  Society  for 
aid.  It  was  found,  on  investigation,  that  the  children  were  being 
supported  at  a private  orphan  asylum,  at  an  expense  to  the  city  of 
$400  per  annum.  The  woman  herself  was  in  receipt  of  poor-law 
relief  amounting  to  $100  per  annum.  It  was  further  found  that 
she  was  in  receipt  of  charity  from  a variety  of  sources,  so  that  she 
was  living  in  absolute  idleness,  supported  by  the  gifts  of  the  benevo- 
lent. The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  District  in  which  she 
lived  endeavored  to  arouse  her  ambition  by  appealing  to  her 
motherly  instincts,  pointing  out  the  disgrace  that  it  would  be  to 
the  children  in  after  days  to  be  known  as  the  children  of  a well- 
known  pauper.  But  it  was  all  in  vain.  She  boldly  confessed  that 
she  had  never  been  so  comfortable  as  she  had  since  the  “ kind  ladies” 
had  taken  charge  of  her.  As  every  attempt  at  persuasion  failed, 
the  Society,  as  a last  resort,  held  a consultation  with  the  Poor 


14 


Master,  and  the  weekly  dole  of  official  relief  was  immediately  cut 
off.  It  was  this  which  brought  her  to  her  senses.  She  asked  what 
the  Society  proposed  to  do  to  compensate  her  for  the  loss  of  the 
"weekly  official  order.  When  told  that  she  would  be  provided  with 
work  to  an  equal  amount,  she  at  first  refused  to  listen  to  the  offer, 
but  finally  accepted  in  a surly,  half-angry  mood.  Four  months 
elapsed.  At  the  end  of  this  time  she  came  to  the  office,  and  of  her  own 
accord  asked  if  the  Committee  could  procure  her  more  work,  as  she 
didn’t  care  to  live  upon  charity  any  longer.  Additional  work  was 
procured,  and  at  her  own  request  the  “ kind  ladies”  were  notified 
that  she  no  longer  needed  their  assistance.  Nearly  a year  elapsed, 
when  she  again  came  to  the  District  office  for  a private  interview 
with  the  Chairman.  She  wanted  her  children,  as  she  had  ample 
work  and  could  support  them.  The  lkdy  visitor  who  had  been 
appointed  to  exercise  a kindly  oversight  of  the  case  was  asked  to 
see  that  the  home  was  made  bright  and  pleasant.  The  children 
were  t#ken  from  the  asylum ; the  family  was  once  again  brought 
together ; the  city  was  saved  $ 500  per  annum ; and  the  woman 
herself  was  reclaimed,  and  is  to-day  as  honest  and  hard  working  a 
woman  as  lives  in  the  city  of  Buffalo. 

I ask  you  to  note  carefully  the  steps  by  which  this  result  was 
accomplished  : 

1st.  Registration  disclosed  the  fact,  not  only  that  the  woman 
was  being  pauperized,  but  also  the  extent  to  which  this  was 
the  case. 

2d.  The  most  demoralizing  part  of  the  charity  she  was  receiv- 
ing, the  official  dole,  was  cut  off,  and  employment  was  found  in 
its  place. 

3d.  A visitor  was  appointed,  not  to  give  alms,  but  the  alms  of 
good  advice,  so  as  to  strengthen  the  woman’s  resolves ; to  help  her 
to  make  the  home  bright  and  cheerful,  and  to  show  her  how  to  get 
the  maximum  of  health  and  comfort  from  her  small  means. 

4th.  As  additional  employment  was  procured,  private  relief 
was  cut  off,  and  the  woman  was  thrown  once  again  upon  her 
own  resources. 

5th.  As  her  self-respect  and  independence  of  character  re- 
turned, the  motherly  instinct  revived,  and  the  receipt  of  relief  in 
any  shape  became  as  distasteful  as  before  it  had  been  welcome. 

I think  it  must  be  apparent  from  the  brief  sketch  just  given  of 
the  aiins  of  charity  organization,  that  it  is  the  friend  of  every  char- 


15 


itable  agency  in  the  city,  and  the  rival  of  none.  It  interferes  in  no 
way  with  the  operations  of  any  existingjiharity.  It  seeks  to  cut  off 
the  waste  but  advocatestneTS^est  hearted  benevolence.  It  de- 
nounces the  pauperization  of  the  poor  under  the  guise  of  charity, 
but  it  tries  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  every  society,  every  individual 
who  strives  to  give  with  discrimination.  It^giyes  no  alms,  nor  does 
it  ask ^rnoney  for  thisjurpose.  It  leaves  the  question  of  religious 
instruction  to  those  who  make  this  their  especial  duty.  It  allows 
^no  proselytism  in  any  department  of  its  work.  It  is  simply  humani- 
tarian in  its  aims.  It  seeks  by  organizing  all  the  charitable  forces 
of  the  city  to  promote  the  social  and  moral  elevation  of  the  poor  and 
the  pauper. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  future  well-being  of  this 
community — the  future  prosperity  of  the  nation — depends  on  this  : 
whether  we  boldly  face  and  resolutely  fight  by  rational  methods  the 
ever  growing  pauperism  of  the  country  or  sit  down  in  indolence  till 
those  whom  we  have  pauperized  turn  upon  us  as  a curse  for  our  neg- 
lect of  a great  and  imperative  duty. 


